Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User pro free speech

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pro free speech[edit]

Its a bit too controversial, and undesirable, to defend the right to free speech with a userbox like this, containing a 1964 picture of KKK members. Sundostund (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close frivolous MfD Clearly not uncivil, inflammatory, or substantially divisive (WP:UBCR). No reasonable Wikipedia editor is going to be sent into a fit of rage by seeing that someone believes in the concept of freedom of speech. Be less fragile. MarshallKe (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any issue with the concept of freedom of speech, on the contrary. The question here is whether that concept should be defended by KKK members as poster boys, and that is what this userbox shows. —Sundostund (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this is not a frivolous MFD, only a good-faith mistake. The userbox is indeed saying that even hate groups like the KKK have the right to speech. The nominator is exercising the right of free speech by nominating the userbox, and Wikipedia should exercise the freedom of its servers (because freedom of the press applies to those who own a press) by keeping the userbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anyone who dislikes the userbox has a right not to transclude it on their user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this isn’t a pro-KKK box, it’s using the KKK as a deliberately extreme example to make a point. Note that it at least shows the Klansman peacefully holding a sign and not, like, lynching people. He’s not even expressing hate speech if you look at the sign— he’s just endorsing Barry Goldwater (or now do we have to ban pro-Goldwater boxen now because of this image?) Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Sundostund: if you want to go after political/potentially divisive userboxes, you'll have plenty of opportunity to when I set up an RfC for just that purpose. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip: Please don't, while good intended there is no agreed upon definition of what is potentially divisive or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually worked on a rough observed consensus in my sandbox. I’ll post it if there is an RfC Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, I think it will be a mess if not done properly. You have to somehow explain your points while keeping the explanation short and concise for it to have a maximum effect. The last thing you need is counterproposals to grind the chat to a standstill (dead chat). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the subject of an essay I'm working on right now, actually, called "Death by proposals". Not anywhere close to done yet, but still an interesting topic. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

$0.02 for anyone working on a big userbox RfC: get some outside opinions about the structure before going live. There's the potential to create a lot of conflict for no payoff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going live with the thing until I get plenty more feedback. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The ACLU defended free speech regardless of the opinions being espoused. For example, the reactionary, anti-Catholic, anti-black Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a frequent target of ACLU efforts, but the ACLU defended the KKK's right to hold meetings in 1923. I'm a bit sensitive right now about the sphere in which this discussion revolves, so I'm not going to weigh in beyond that quote. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.